Search for: "Industrial Contractors, Inc." Results 821 - 840 of 2,183
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jan 2018, 5:35 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  In addition, five days after releasing the March 4, 2017 Breach 8-K, 21CO notified investors that its subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. [read post]
Contractors, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 156 (2017), the Board overruled Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) and reinstated its prior standard for determining when multiple employers can be jointly liable under the NLRA. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 6:57 am by Brian Hall
The balancing test worked in Boeing’s favor because of the nature of its business as an airplane manufacturer; it may not weigh in favor of other more restrictive no-camera policies or in other industries where national security concerns are not implicated. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 9:30 pm by Sarah Madigan
In November, Monsanto, Inc. along with several agricultural industry groups sued the OEHHA for listing glyphosate as a carcinogen following a 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer report listing glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 1:44 pm by Andrea DeField
In an article appearing in Law360, Hunton & Williams LLP’s insurance coverage practice group head, Walter Andrews, weighs in on the Florida Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 1:44 pm by Andrea DeField
In an article appearing in Law360, Hunton & Williams LLP’s insurance coverage practice group head, Walter Andrews, weighs in on the Florida Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. [read post]
The Trump Board’s decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors & Brandt Construction Co., 365 NLRB No. 156, overturns Browning Ferris and returns the joint-employer test to the historical standard. [read post]
The Trump Board’s decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors & Brandt Construction Co., 365 NLRB No. 156, overturns Browning Ferris and returns the joint-employer test to the historical standard. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 6:00 am by Adam Santucci
  In Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, the Board abandoned the Browning-Ferris standard and declared that joint-employer status requires proof that the putative joint employer has actually exercised joint control over essential employment terms, rather than merely having reserved the right to exercise control. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 7:13 am by Joy Waltemath
The ALJ applied the standard adopted in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. dba BFI Newby Island Recyclery. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 5:36 am by Joshua Fox
  In a widely-predicted 3-2 decision (Miscimarra, Kaplan, Emanuel), the NLRB, in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 156 (Dec. 14, 2017), reinstated the traditional standard that had been followed for more than 30 years. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 10:31 pm by Anthony Zaller
  This Friday’s Five reviews five keys issues on the NLRB’s ruling in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors and Brandt Construction Co. and the joint employer test for California employers: 1. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 4:33 am by Jon Hyman
 — via Employment Essentials Interns Flunk the Class — via The Wage and Hour Litigation Blog Labor National Labor Relations Board Moves to End “Quickie” Union Election Rule — via CUE, Inc. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 9:38 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Employers in the healthcare and services industry increasingly are reporting similar challenges. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 10:04 am by Keahn Morris
Joint employer – Cases should be submitted to the GC if they involve a finding of joint employer status based on evidence of indirect or potential control over the working conditions of another employer’s employees under Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 6:11 am by Joy Waltemath
In its December 2012 Latino Express, Inc. ruling, the NLRB adopted the acting general counsel’s proposed remedies requiring employers to reimburse the excess income taxes paid out by an employee as a result of having received a lump-sum backpay award and the reporting of that backpay allocation to the Social Security Administration. [read post]